## Facts

- California enacted Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 354.4 (2000), granting jurisdiction and extending limitations (to Dec. 31, 2010) for certain insurance claims tied to policies “issued or in effect between 1875 and 1923.”
- The statute defined eligible claimants as “Armenian Genocide victim[s]” and their heirs and framed covered claims as “arising out of the Armenian Genocide.”
- Plaintiffs, heirs/beneficiaries of insured Armenians who perished or disappeared during 1915–1923 in the former Ottoman Empire, alleged European insurers (including Victoria Versicherung AG) failed to pay life-insurance benefits.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court in California and relied on § 354.4 for timeliness and a state-created forum for these claims.
- Victoria moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing § 354.4 was preempted by the federal government’s foreign affairs power; the district court denied the motion.
- A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, but the court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 354.4 is preempted under the federal foreign affairs doctrine because it adopts a state position on a disputed foreign policy question and creates a litigation mechanism tied to that position.
2. Whether § 354.4 has more than an incidental effect on foreign relations by targeting a specific foreign historical event and labeling it “genocide.”

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held § 354.4 preempted by the federal foreign affairs power.
- The court concluded the statute was not a neutral limitations rule because it expressly treated the underlying events as the “Armenian Genocide” and created a special state-law cause of action tied to that characterization.
- The court held the statute’s purpose and effect intruded into a domain reserved to the federal government by creating a state-level foreign policy position on a diplomatically sensitive matter.
- The court remanded with instructions to dismiss claims brought under § 354.4.
- Having found preemption, the court did not reach other constitutional or statutory defenses.

## Legal Principles

- State law may be preempted by the federal foreign affairs power even without a directly conflicting federal statute or treaty.
- A state enactment is invalid under foreign affairs preemption when it has more than an incidental effect on foreign relations by expressing or implementing a state foreign policy position.
- Statutes targeting a specific foreign historical controversy and conditioning legal rights on the state’s characterization of that controversy can constitute an impermissible intrusion into the federal government’s conduct of foreign relations.

## Conclusion

The en banc Ninth Circuit held that California’s statute creating time-extended insurance claims for “Armenian Genocide” victims and heirs was preempted because it functioned as a state foreign policy judgment with direct foreign-relations consequences, requiring dismissal of claims dependent on that statute.


Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)